Critics shifted seamlessly from complaining about China playing hardball with low-income borrowers ("debt-trap diplomacy") to complaining that China's ball is too soft. You almost have to admire the sheer audacity. ft.com/content/f27a54… The goalposts always move. Imagine if Beijing actually took this recommendation and used its leverage as creditor to impose tax hikes and social welfare cuts on struggling, low-income economies. Critics would then be howling about economic imperialism.

THREAD on the role of state vs private in China’s economy, inspired by this article, which is provocative but ultimately pretty flawed. wsj.com/articles/china…

Articles on this theme often conflate two different ways the Communist Party might try to "control" private firms: 1) Setting broad boundaries and objectives -- e.g., DON’T disrupt social stability, financial security, DO promote tech innovation, digitization, environment, etc

2) Interfering in management -- e.g., hire these executives, choose this vendor, design product with these features.